PAVP

I always find it shocking when I see a really new high end TV.  I remember years ago going to a local sears and seeing for the 1st time what a Blu Ray movie looked like on one of these new TV's and I was shocked at how real everything looked.  I stared at it for a very long time and eventually I got used to it, but it still never had the effect on me that a 24p film does.  There's just something about that look I prefer.  It's like the old Analog vs. Digital arguments on the Audio side.  There's a melding together of the elements that makes it more pleasing to our senses.  We don't like it when something just stands out in an unnatural way to cause us to be distracted from the experience.    Now I do think that maybe 48fps could work more with Action movies like Batman, Ironman or Terminator styled movies.  Cold and technical Sci Fi type stuff would seem like a better match.  My guess is that if more and more movies were made this way the public would adjust.  Just don't know if it's a real improvement tho. I never start a project looking for that hyper real aesthetic.  I'm always trying to make it look more like old film.

Once again thank you Andrew for doing this comparison. I'm blown away by the BMCC, but also the GH2/3 based on just how inexpensive those cameras are. Really like the look of the GH3 but if I had the money i'd grab a BMCC in a heartbeat. I'm tired of reading complaints about the BMCC when in fact there's nothing that can compare in this price range. Almost all of the options have limitations and needed additions to help make it easier to shoot, so what's the complaint there? I just think it's a great time for low budget film makers with these great affordable options.

Hi Foggyflute, it's hard to say what is best to test Moire, but i'm guessing a fine print shirt or curtain. Perhaps a mesh screen or brick building. Usually it's precise fine patterns that wouldn't appear in nature. Maybe there's some buildings near by that would present a problem.

Hey Andrew, can we get a confirmation about the HDMI being 4:2:2 now or still just 4:2:0? That was a new update after so many statements that the GH3 couldn't do 4:2:2 do to its design. Would love a clarification on whether this was a typo or not.

Thanks for another great review Andrew. I did wonder tho if you meant to say that the GH3 has clean HDMI output at 4:2:2? Every mention i've seen has always said it's only 4:2:0.

I'm convinced that it's almost impossible to compete with Sony. They are on a roll that is impressive when you think about all the cameras they've produced all the way down to their Consumer Camcorders. They must have an enormous R&D department to have simultaneously developed so many cameras. It's unreal. They move faster than everyone else too.

Man people are really going overboard with this stuff. I can't see why we only want to focus on the images that look bad and ignore the ones where things look GREAT! How do we keep the camera in that sweat zone is what we need to be asking. What was the cause of the bad color casts and what were the conditions that lead to the great skin tones on other footage? I think this camera is gonna be great once we learn how to get the best out of it. I'm not seeing consistently bad image, just some freaky stuff that could be caused by any number of combination of factors. Could be lens correction, bad lights, settings needing tweaks, firmware issues...

From what i've seen so far the few instances of Moire don't seem to be the really bad color moire we're used to seeing. This might be something that can be dealt with. Once we nail down just what kicks the image into that moire range. It's not as rampant as many other cameras i've seen. I'm not sure my favorite older lenses would cause the GH3 to have that moire. We'll have to see when more cameras are available and more tests can be done.

[quote name='bwhitz' timestamp='1348275121' post='18857'] The detail is horrible and it renders textures like a 7D (everything looks plastic). The GH3 looks, unfortunately, like a disgusting leap backwards in image rendering. It's just another fake 1080p camera like the rest now. Terrible job Panasonic, terrible. [/quote] Until you get to shoot with a production model and adjusted settings, how can you really say all these things are definitive from this video. The things you're saying sound more like subjective personal taste than actual real objective critiques. I think too many are ready to jump on this camera and not like it. I'd have to see the 2 cameras shoot the same scene before i'd say that the GH3 definitely is a step backwards. We won't get that chance for a while yet.

Man those people going on about the GH2 are NUTS!!! This camera looks like it's gonna be a winner IMO. The color is much better and the highlights looks much more pleasing. Given that we haven't yet seen any footage from a production model yet nor footage that has been taken under the best circumstances and after a user has gotten to learn how to get the best possible image, this is impressive IMO. I just don't see what the naysayers are going on about. I'll have to see a lot worse footage than this to assume that the GH3 won't be the new camera for me.

THX Andrew. I personally think that the GH3 is a very good improvement even if there are some compromises. Let's remember what the price point is for this camera. The D600 is perhaps the closest competitor and it's about $800 more. There's just a seeming lack of appreciation due to expectations. Regarding 4:2:2 i'd say that for one thing I had ZERO interest in recording the HDMI output of the GH3 and i'm glad that they gave us higher bit rates from the start so that the in camera image quality remains high. I actually like some of what i've seen from the pre-production images so far. I think the GH3 will be a very good camera even if it isn't perfect. Pany gave us MOST of the things we've asked for. Some of the missing things I think can be added so i'm not too worried.

This camera has my name on it. I think this is my new A Cam. I've been reading the many negative comments about the lack of certain features or price and I must say that it's just funny to me. This is a GREAT camera for the price. Even with the increase in cost, it's still better than many cameras that are more than twice as expensive. Besides it's just another option. If it's too much there are cheaper options including the GH2, so really there's no reason to be negative about the GH3. I love the fact that Pany has given us higher levels of quality settings and more range on the adjustments of color and contrast. This is one of my biggest wishes. Love the built in Slow mo. Happy about the increase in DR in particular the low light improvements. Low Light settings are the majority of the work I do. Can't wait to get my hands on this camera. I don't have the budget for a BMC so this really helps to soften the blow.

YES!!!!!! Man that was great. I'm so excited about this camera. I can't think of a reason to knock a camera in this price range that offers this much. The GH is still the king of the low cost cameras!!! Many of us said we'd pay a little more for the features we needed and it seems Pany really listened. The Hack community really helped them make a great product and I think it's gonna be a big hit. Being able to record at such a high quality level IN CAMERA with SD cards makes this such a great low cost tool. Already many lens options available. Now we need some 3rd party rigs and other things to make it even better. Can't wait to see more about the picture profiles. I didn't see any banding or issues that stood out.

The closer we get the more excited and intrigued I become. I wish there was a clear indication of whether we'll get 4:2:2 or not. This is the one last thing I've been hoping for. It's something I think that would push this over the top IMO. I LOVE the fact that they added .MOV. I suppose that's due to the All I recording? In any event this camera looks like it's going to be once again the best Bang for Buc camera for Indie Film etc.

People seem to always get it confused that higher bit rate is the only determinant of the final video quality, but they are not realizing the importance of the Codec and the processing that goes into the final product. Case in point is that Sony FS100 at 28mbit is far different from a Sony Handycam at the same bit rate. Just like the original Canon Codec and processor in the 5Dmk2 was a limiting factor in final quality despite a higher bit rate than a stock GH2. A GH3 with an 80mbit bit rate could be great depending upon the codec and strength of the in camera processing. We don't know if they have made improvements in their processing but I would guess they probably have. I think Panasonic has a better understanding of how big the market is for Video DSLM cameras is, than when they 1st made the GH1. There are a lot of sales to be made in this segment. I know that I myself would buy several GH3's if they are as good as many of us hope.

I love each and every one of these Zacuto Shootout productions. It has educated me on a lot of things I didn't know. I don't take everything as if it's infallible but rather as part of my continuing education about the field. I'm coming from the Audio side of things as a life long 2nd generation Musician and Sound Engineer. The cameras I own are low cost. GH2, T2i, a couple of Canon Vixia's. So I'm always trying to figure out how to get the most out of my cameras. I'm shocked at how small the difference is between a low end DSLR and top end cameras. I'm more interested in solutions to the limitations of these low end cameras and the Zacuto Shootout really did help me more clearly understand how to get my camera to give the best image. I now have more confidence in what my camera can achieve with the right lighting, file management and grading. This is EXTREMELY liberating for me and i'm sure many like me who are new to this arena. I would also like to applaud Zacuto, EOSHD and the many blogs and websites that are dedicated to educating film makers and videographers like me.

I really think we're missing the point if we look at this footage and are critiquing the manner in which it was shot. It's a good thing that it wasn't a perfectly lit, steadycam'd, big production that accounted for every weakness the camera could have. What would we learn from that? With enough time and money you can make any camera look great and yet not know much about what the true character of the camera is. This is like a window into what the camera is really like minus all the trappings.

Man so far I love it. It will be a tough choice for me. So far i've liked the look of the Nikon D800 footage in terms of it's dynamic range and how it handled highlights, plus the fact that it's a GREAT stills camera too. I like the FS100 as well for it's overall image and great low light ability. Man it's so tough to really pick from these cameras since none really gives you everything and each has it's own strengths. The BMD just feels right from the images i've seen so far. There's a quality look that doesn't distract making me think about the image in any overtly negative sense. Nothing really jumps out and says to me that looks low end. That's all i'm looking for. I'm not expecting more than is realistic to expect. It is more than I could ever imagine being able to afford tho and that is amazing.

UGH! I want this camera so bad! I have to start saving up for this. It just looks so sweet. I don't care about the so called limitations or what it isn't. I like what it is. I was actually thinking about a 5D3 or D800, but this camera is just too freakin unbelievable at this price range. I don't need the FF look as much as I need the overall Image quality and filmic look of the BMCC. I've got a feeling this thing is gonna be sick. I can't wait to see some real world images and reviews when it hits the streets. In the meantime i've got to read up on the workflow for this camera and figure out what my system will have to be like etc. Very interesting days ahead.

I had guessed that B was the GH2 simply based on the comments about how those guys lit the scene. I also think it was a bit too video looking, but still I would be more than happy with footage that looked that good overall and perhaps toned it down just a bit and had the scene with a bit more DR than it had. They kind of overdid it, but that is based on how it looked on my Vizio and not how it may have translated in the theater. I can imagine that it probably popped just right on a big screen and projector. Regardless it gives me great confidence in the capabilities of the GH2 and that has value of it own. I now know that i'm not fooling myself when I think something I record looks good. It actually does look good and not just cuz i shot it on my camera and and deluding myself. That knowledge has value. I come from a Pro Audio background and I know all too well that many times we fool ourselves into thinking the work we did with low cost gear sounds better than it actually did. It was hard to have a frame of reference to make that judgment. However, with the GH2 we have a really telling frame of reference that is undeniable. Now I can just work and stop worrying so much. Right now the exciting cameras in the sub 10K range are the FS 100/700, Nikon D800, Black Magic Design Cinema and GH2 IMO.

DR is a huge issue IMO.  We've got Resolution, but if they could squeeze more out of the way this camera handles highlights and lowlight that would be big.  On top of that a solid 4:2:2 and 60p don't sound too out of the question. More than this what I think would also help a lot is much finer picture profile adjustments and a wider range.  Why they limited it to a very small +/- 2 is hard to understand.  Why not allow as much picture adjustment as possible?  Isn't this afterall an enthusiast camera?  More adjustment would seem to fit the idea of what users would be looking for.

[quote author=ndblak link=topic=852.msg6141#msg6141 date=1339847788] I find myself visiting EOSHD with increasing regularity.  It seems to me the right time to join the forum.  Hopefully I can contribute something interesting and insightful in the not to distant future.  Thank you to Andrew Reid. [/quote] Andrew is doing a tremendous job with this site.  Chock full of information and great writing.  I check in here everyday Just to make sure I stay up to date. 

I really like this shootout, because it's about results more than absolutes in the technical sense.  I'm much more interested in techniques and solutions to achieving the best image more than reading about how a camera can't do this or that.  Tell me what it can do under the best practices.  How to get the most out of a given camera.  Here we learn that the most important part of the equation is the skill of the DP and how we can achieve the best possible end product no matter what our cameras limitations or price.  There will always be a cream of the crop camera which doesn't require as much help, but for the masses that can't get access to those cameras it's great to learn how to get much closer to the best possible image using better techniques.

I'm still holding out hope for the Nikon D800/800E with the Mosaic Filter and a BM Hyperdeck 2.  I feel like that would give me more of what i'm looking for, but only if that would limit the Moire enough to make it all worthwhile.  I really like some of what i've seen from the D800 so far.  After that it's waiting on the GH3, BMCC and Sony A99.  Not too long to wait tho.  In truth i'd love to save up for a Sony FS700.  I LOVE what i've seen from that camera so far.  That's at the extreme end of my budget tho and I really hope I can get some more good jobs this year to save up for it.  So far the work i've got has been good :)  A couple more good gigs and I might just be able to swing for an FS700. Just wish there was something better in my real price range.  If the GH3 or Sony A99 have 1080/60p I think i'll be satisfied with that, so long as they can improve the low light and DR a bit.

I'm a longtime Audio Pro that is a now a Newbie Video guy and for years i've been very keen to the virtues of using gear within it's range of strength.  So long as you know the strengths and weaknesses of a piece of gear you can work within that range and get some very surprisingly high quality results.  The same goes for a camera like the GH2 or GH1 or any DSLR for that matter.  If you go in knowing how far you can push the camera before it reaches it's limits then you can make a great film that no audience member would be distracted by the quality of the image.  OF COURSE an Epic or Alexa is better!  Those guys bashing the GH2 over at Reduser are funny.  Why be so dismissive? There isn't ONE acceptable film look or quality level!!!  So why is it that some talk as if you simply can't make a good film with a camera as cheap as the GH2?  I just watched a movie called "Haywire" which was done by Steven Soderbergh using a Red One.  I don't know what lens he was using but you could see that all the straight lines in the movie were curved which for me was quite noticeable and somewhat distracting and on top of that he did some strange things with the Color Grading.  He used pretty much only available light.  Mind you this was a $23 million dollar movie!!!  He made specific aesthetic decisions that I may not have liked and that certainly didn't give the film a very high end look, but he wasn't trying to make it look like a high res modern sci fi movie.  He wanted a very specific look that fit the story he was telling which was a kind of gritty action spy movie.  He wanted to give the movie an Art House look and he did accomplish that.  Surely an independent guy looking to make a movie with a unique look could use a low cost DSLR to get the job done so long as it serves to tell the story and give him the look he's looking for.